Doesn't sound that way.i took the comment as facetious?
Doesn't sound that way.i took the comment as facetious?
Trooper Paul's explanation was just insane, as I thought how can he keep a straight face with his description. His imagination was wild.i took the comment as facetious?
So skipping the fact that a little cocktail glass can't dent a vehicle without someone actually smashing it intentionally and very hard into the car, you're saying both the upper and lower portions of his arm were cut up by the taillight? How does that work?
How would just his arm cause a taillight to fracture into 45 pieces? Or at all, for that matter? Those things are hard as a *advertiser censored*. Try punching one.
If only his arm was hit, not only would his shoe not have been knocked off, he'd have walked away with maybe a bruise or two at most. He wouldn't have flown anywhere, never mind 30 feet.
The head injury was very serious and incapacitating. Your interpretation ignores this. If fact, this entire scenario is complete fanciful.
Have there been any days for the CW?!Yeah my bad. I should have known he was going to fumble the opportunity.
I'm giving this day to the Defense..AGAIN. The accident "specialist" was a HUUUUGE loss. The rest of the day was spent defending Jen Mcabe..Again! Oh and there were some texts were shown by another trooper of a couple having a pretty mild argument that barely qualifies as an argument let alone a rage killing. Another waste of time!
Fine line between wild explanations and perjury. I think he may have crossed it. MOO. Bias in the finding of facts, bias in omission of of facts, confirmation bias and material misstatements, which he knew or should have known were false. MOO. The Prosecutor could get into a world of trouble if they lose this case, and it is appealed. MOO.Trooper Paul's explanation was just insane, as I thought how can he keep a straight face with his description. His imagination was wild.
Big time.Fine line between wild explanations and perjury. I think he may have crossed it. MOO. Bias in the finding of facts, bias in omission of of facts, confirmation bias and material misstatements, which he knew or should have known were false. MOO. The Prosecutor could get into a world of trouble if they lose this case, and it is appealed. MOO.
Doesn't sound that way.
dbm.maybe the other doc also has the expertise to tell us that the Cellebrite data is wrong and can spend an hour testifying that Jen McCabe didn't search "hos long to die in cold" at 2:27AM?
So she said cause of death was undetermined, but also said the arm wounds weren’t consistent with dog bites, and other injuries weren’t consistent with a fight? I was really hoping she’d shed some light on the case but I think she won’t add anything at this point.The highly anticipated ME must be shaking in her boots right now. The CW's case hinges on her testimony. She undoubtedly has seen the defense at work with other CW witnesses. She knows what's coming . I wonder if she has seen the replay of today's witness on the stand, whispering quietly to himself in the mic, "Kill me". I did. Not good. Not good at all.
MOO
Yes it was. I inserted a lot of Trooper Paul's wild claims into this. Maybe he was being facetious too.i took the comment as facetious?
Anyone watching this live ... did you see/hear when the witness whispered "KILL ME"?
It also doesn’t hurt it, when more recent info was available. They appeared affectionate and not angry with each other according to what everyone with them said. That may trump a spat earlier in the day for some.I never said that.
But having evidence that the defendant in a murder case had voiced anger with the victim doesn't help in their defense. JMO.
Compare their texts / messages with Proctor's texts.It also doesn’t hurt it, when more recent info was available. They appeared affectionate and not angry with each other according to what everyone with them said. That may trump a spat earlier in the day for some.
This was exactly my thought too! She kept saying ok leaving, kids are alone, trying desperately to get a response. She in no way knew she’d hit him if she did. ImoTo me, this kind of comes across like she felt like he was ignoring her and she was saying something to try to get him to respond. JMO
When you look at this case in it's entirety the angry text messages probably wont sway the jury much if at all. JMO.It also doesn’t hurt it, when more recent info was available. They appeared affectionate and not angry with each other according to what everyone with them said. That may trump a spat earlier in the day for some.
The comment was a sarcastic, exaggerated (but not by much) version of what Trooper Paul said last week. He said John was hit in the right arm by the taillight, causing it to break, and that caused him to spin around as he flew through the air and landed on his back on the ground, causing the head injury.So skipping the fact that a little cocktail glass can't dent a vehicle without someone actually smashing it intentionally and very hard into the car, you're saying both the upper and lower portions of his arm were cut up by the taillight? How does that work?
How would just his arm cause a taillight to fracture into 45 pieces? Or at all, for that matter? Those things are hard as a *advertiser censored*. Try punching one.
If only his arm was hit, not only would his shoe not have been knocked off, he'd have walked away with maybe a bruise or two at most. He wouldn't have flown anywhere, never mind 30 feet.
The head injury was very serious and incapacitating. Your interpretation ignores this. If fact, this entire scenario is completely fanciful.
I think she sounded more hurt than angry. She was begging him to discuss their issues.I would say that the prosecution has done of very poor job and LE has done an even worse job in it's investigation.
But I stand by my belief that evidence of a defendant voicing anger toward the victim doesn't help the defendant in any way. JMO.
Painful to see and hear.I think she sounded more hurt than angry. She was begging him to discuss their issues.
I also think both of them drinking in excess was detrimental to the relationship.
I think compared with what Proctor wrote, the jury will not give any weight to the messages between KR and JO. MOOI think she sounded more hurt than angry. She was begging him to discuss their issues.
I also think both of them drinking in excess was detrimental to the relationship.